Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 22

[Bald Eagle]

OK, can you guys explain to me how that's valid in light of:
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/DistrictCourts.htm

"Plain error occurs only when the error is clear and obvious* and effects substantial rights" U.S. v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3rd Cir. 2001).

*It's obvious by the U.S. Attorney Manual 664, that 1-8-17 "embraces courthouses"! including the Warren B. Rudman Building, in Concord, New Hampshire.

http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2007/061077np.pdf

"Substantial rights are affected if the error was sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the trial."

The U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H. is withOUT "jurisdiction"! Our state offered them "concurrent jurisdiction" back on June 14, 1883, but that they declined!

JSH

The "United States District Court" is not the Article III constitutional "district court of the United States". See, Mookini  v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, where definition is specific as to syntax. No where in Title 28 U.S. Code can be found "criminal jurisdiction" for a USDC. Original jurisdiction for all crimes against the United States is delegated in 18 USC 3231 to "district courts of the United States". Accordingly, the Concord court is a mere administrative Tribunal without criminal jurisdiction. Those who have conspired to practice such criminal action,without jurisdiction, have abandoned their office and exposed themselves to hazard of civil action. Civil action has been delegated to the USDC in Title 28 but no such delegation of criminal action. If there is, show me!

[JosephSHaas]

The ingredients of such a person? see:
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

Great.  So someone please explain to me how nonviolent noncooperation gets us anywhere with these incurable amoral monsters.

Not that anyone hasn't noticed, but there are a lot of these people running things and getting hired to capitalize on just the sort of traits that make them dangerous to the rest of us.  The inmates really are in control of the asylum.

How do you wrest control from them and put them back into the restraints without taking a position of power and "initiating force"?  They're more animal than human.  You might as well go on safari with a sign that reads, "Hungry lions, please don't eat me."

These are the people that Revelation and Atlas Shrugged warned us about.

Thanks Bald Eagle.  I find these U.S. Marshals here in New Hampshire thoroughly disgusting, and so much so that at http://www.google.com for "United States Marshal" disgust, see page 1 #3 there of an interesting:

KANSAS COLLECTION BOOKS  /  William G. Chandler's History of the State of Kansas  /  TERRITORIAL HISTORY, Part 32   /  CHIEF JUSTICE LECOMPTE, PART 2  of May, 1856

This incident in the Kansas Territory, was before it became a "State" as mentioned in Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17, U.S. Constitution, so not as cut-and-dry as the Ed Brown case here in New Hampshire is supposed to be, by the federal non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.

Back then in Kansas Territory in the paragraph "from your professed ignorance... at http://www.kancoll.org/books/cutler/terrhist/terrhist-p32.html in the May 15, 1865 (Reply.) can be found the following:

"ex-Gov. Reeder...denied the power and authority of said court, and threatened the life of said deputy, if he attempted to execute said process, which speech and defiant threats were loudly applauded by some one or two hundred of the citizens of Lawrence".

"But I (I.B. DONALDSON, U.S. Marshal, Kansas Territory) must take the liberty of executing ALL processes in my hands as United States Marshal, in my own time and manner, and shall only use such power as is authorized by LAW."

(emphasis ADDed for what then was ALL processes whether unlawful or illegal, the LAWful part being only in the service of delivery of such in the procedural rather than the substantive due process of law, which has changed since then, since Monier's oath is to only serve LAWFUL process! of which Ed also claimed and "denied the power and authority of said court". So WHO better to judge the lawful and legality of the goons-in-power at 55 Pleasant Street?, than some state judge, as a check-and-balance, to look at the evidence of non-filing and say to the Feds: Wise Up! -- Danny Riley, out you go on your Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to help Ed Brown assert his Art. 10 Right of Revolution in any way you want!) that is, up to the filing of the papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, the very proof of such being done AFTER the fact proving that they had no jurisdiction BEFORE that day and time, as we have the law against Restrospectivity here in New Hampshire, in Art. 23 of our Bill of Rights.

J.S.H.

[srqrebel]

These are the people that Revelation and Atlas Shrugged warned us about.

  +1 for using "Revelation" and "Atlas Shrugged" in the same sentence

[JosephSHaas]

Jail visits.

...
Jason Gerhard has an inmate booking #P211914 when writing to him, and he's at: P.O. Box 807 (20 Manning Ave.), Middleton, MA 01949 (tel. # above in Reply #___) and in Block 240-C, Cell #721.  He sent me the Sept.-Oct. 07 Visiting chart with his days circled of today: Sunday, Sept. 30th @ 2:00-2:30 p.m.; then for October of: what looks like they are very accommodating by giving the friends and relatives a different day of the week each week, with the order as follows:

1. Thu., Oct. 04th Afternoon [+ Evening]
2. Mon., Oct. 08th [Columbus Day] Aft. & Eve. plus: Fri., Oct. 12th Aft. [the real holiday];
3. Tue., Oct. 16th Aft. & Eve.; plus: Saturday, October 20th Aft.;
4. Wed., Oct. 24th Aft. & Eve.;
5. Sun., Oct. 28th Aft.

The times for Block 240C are 2:00-2:30, and 7:00-7:30 for what is only a half-hour (1/2 hr.) visit, with Sign Up starting at 12:30 and 5:30 for the other Block 240D too of them getting an hour each time of between 12:30-1:30 and 5:30-6:30 p.m. with No Night Visits Fri., Sat & Sun.

....

I just called the Essex County Jail at 978-750-1900 to find out that Reno (Cirino Gonzalez) is there too, in Block 240D, Cell 839. You do not need his booking # unless you're sending in a Money Order the man said to me. The visiting Days for Block 240D are the same day as 240C as above noted, but during the earlier in the afternoon and evening time sections.

I'm busy tomorrow, Thu. Oct. 4th, so I might visit Jason first on this Federal Columbus Day, Mon., Oct. 8th +/or the real Columbus Day, Fri., Oct. 12th, and/or the other days as noted for: Tue., Sat., Wed. and Sunday in #3, 4 + 5 above.

Warning: If anybody is planning to visit tomorrow, Thu., Oct. 4th (note: you do not need to be on his visiting list, nor put down any time) be aware that they are currently in a "lock-down" and that there are "no visits until further notice" is what I was just told.

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Dan Riley Habeas Corpus update:

--I did just call the Jail http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/jail/superintendent.html to try to talk with the Superintendent, Warren Dowaliby, and got some recording from a man saying that this line may be monitored or recorded for security reasons and then over to some list of numbers:

1: booking, 2: central control, 3: more options, so 3 it was to: 1: Administration*; 2: Jail Industries; 3: Office Classification; 8: visitation hours; 9: return to the main menu; 9: to leave a message; so *1 it was to Ann Fornier at extension 5133 MT+T 6-2, W+F 8-4 left a message about me visiting Danny on Sunday, and talking over his Petition with the papers I obtained from the state against the Feds, and if any questions to call me at my cell #603: 848-6059 later today;

The same message was left at :2 central control when I called back and they transferred me over to the Superintendent's voice mail, because he was in a meeting.

--Then I did call the Strafford County Superior Court
Strafford County Justice & Administration Building
279 County Farm Road
P.O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03820-0799
Clerk: Julie W. Howard
Phone: (603) 772-3065
Hours: Mon.-Fr., 8:30am - 4:00pm
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/straffsupedir.htm

and instead of a #- for directory, nor 335 for domestic, 401 for jurors, then to civil + equity 350, I pressed this number and spoke with Stephanie in Equity where these type Petitions go, and she said that there is no file # yet as she does not recognize the name, to maybe file later today, tomorrow or Friday, so + 3 days would be a hearing someday next week at the earliest, to check back on Friday afternoon ______ and relay to over here.

J.S.H.

P.S. Down the line at the extension #'s is the County Attorney, __________ at 749-2808 who I might call now too; ____. It used to be Lincoln Soldati, who taught the Constitution to the cadets at the Police Academy, NHTI @ Concord years ago, when I did ask him for a copy of his course materials, him having none, just from the top of his head, and not a course, but a class.

Modification: Janice Rundles is the County Attorney now, and her receptionist says there is no case # yet for last name: Riley in for con-conspiritry, but when the papers do arrive, the procedure is that she will assign the case to one of her #__ assistants, ________ so to call back sometime next week.

[VEPR]

Thought our beloved Govt suspended Habeau Corpus

[JosephSHaas]

Thought our beloved Govt suspended Habeau Corpus

I think that might happen when Martial Law is declared at the national level.

Here in New Hampshire, it's still there in Article 91, Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution that reads:

"The privilege and benefit of the habeas corpus, shall be enjoyed in this state, in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious, and ample manner, and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a time not exceeding three months."

note: a few years ago the Superior Court system set up some Rule #__ that, in effect, over-rides the Constitution, and now requires some $_____ filing fee (jacked up to $175.00 I think it is at the Superior Courts too, by the Democrats, so wrote State Rep./Attny/ Republican David Hess of Hooksett in The http://www.concordmonitor.com or http://www.unionleader.com back sometime this Summer in the "Letters to the Editor" section blaming them for this high-jacking) if you're not indigent, as I paid under protest once as having gotten it for free before AND released from up there in Grafton County Jail by Rbt.E.K. Morrill saying Judge Edwin W. Kelly was a bad boy in Plymouth District Court, but since put in charge of ALL the State District Courts! See also Art. 14 in Part First & Bill of Rights that "they" have declared mere privileges now in that they say no to the fact that "Legal Remedies to be Free", them, in effect, centering in on the "to be" section for future tense, as not applicable to today, BELIEVE IT OR NOT! that got former State Rep. Dick Marple of Hooksett so upset that he filed a House Bill #____ about this that got ITL'd in Committee, which members must have gotten paid off with bribes, as Dick was a witness to envelopes with greenbacks floating around from Lobbyists to the Senators when it came down to a draw, YES, this is true, he told me, and that I reported to the Legislators once in some public hearing, but it falling on deaf ears, as "they" probably are "on the take" too!

Article 14 also is supposed to guarantee "Complete" legal remedies too, but that the Supremes now charge a Filing Fee for Habeas Corpus appeals of non-indigents too! and the Legislators sit on their asses and refuse to be the check-and-balance in the system from withIN to extract this corruption of the body politic by way of Impeachment. That's why I say, never re-vote for an incumbent! "Vote the Hypocritical Rascals Out!" was what Jack Garner, I think was his name, did by placing a $100,000 full page advertisement in "The New York Times" back in the 1980s, with an address for where to send $donations to, him getting so much more money than that original cost of the ad, that he's now retired in luxury living the Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086750/ of 1984.

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

I just called most of the State Reps on the State-Federal Relations Committee, See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H25 late this morning, at noontime, and into the early afternoon. Re: to give them the info that there might be a Court Hearing on The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Danny Riley, in Strafford County Superior Court, next week on ______day, Oct. ___, 2007 @ __:_ am/pm in courtroom #___. They might like to attend on this subject matter.

A.) Leaving voice records for: (1) Kris Roberts, the Chairman in Keene @ 352-1105; (2) Baldwin Domingo in Dover @ 742-0422; (3) Rachel Burke in Farmington @ 755-3353 [next door to Dover]; (4) Frank Emiro of Londonderry too (see below (3)*, as he is supposed to be anti-court on some stuff); (5) Raymond Gagnon of Claremont @ 542-7286; (6) Rudy Lessard in Hudson @ 579-0356; + (7) Connie Soucy in Manchester @ 644-5851.

B.) Talking live with (1) Democrat** Eleanor Glynn Kiellman of Henniker @ 428-4234 who was at that January meeting of me presenting my Art. 32 Petition for any one of them to House Rule 36 endorse for the Speaker to process by Rule 4, but that my request, she said, should have been put in writing directly to her, as she does not indirectly seek out WHY her Chairman buries the papers in the House Clerk's dust pile on the 3rd floor of the State House! In other words wanting me to jump over #__ hurdles, and so resenting me telling her of this hearing next week that they could have dealt with by putting pressure on the governor to do his Art. 41 duty! ...

(2) ...a duty Stephanie Eaton of Littleton @ 444-2604 says needs to be done, and so to bother Gov. John H. Lynch "every day" by calling his office morning, noon and night, until it gets done, 271-2121.

(3) Alfred Baldasaro in Londonderry* @ 425-6997 very appreciative of the call, and to center in on the Republicans to get the job done! 

(4) Roland Hofemann in Dover @ 749-4154 saying: yes, to call back for a day + time of hearing that he might be available for attendance;

(5) Carolyn Lisle, not in @ 888-3333 for Londonderry, but her husband to pass along the info, him saying he gets about a dozen calls a day to this 888# when the people in N.H. forget to dial the #1 for the toll free line to the FAX blast office.

(6) Doreen Howard of Newmarket @ 659-2348 not in either, to have him relay the message too, or call back in one hour; __

(7) George Brown, of Rochester @ 332-2107  in the hospital, for cancer condition his daughter said, to be on the look-out for a "Foster's Daily Democrat"(*) article on this?;

8.  and Lars Christiansen of Hudson @ 889-0481 saying to call back with the day/time later too, and to meet in Concord with Marple one of these days for a copy of that 109-page anti IRS liens case in Florida where the man won that false filing of a notice of lien, as a lien, it being RSA Ch. ____ Tampering with Public Records up here, to alert the Registrars of Deeds about to put them into the culpable mental state of knowing such so as to charge with this criminal misdemeanor, but needing somebody as a victim of such to get the ball rolling, and in all ten (10) counties is the plan. ______

J.S.H.

(*) The "Foster's Daily Democrat" at http://www.fosters.com/ to give them a call in a few minutes. ______

Modification: Bill - I'll call you tonight about Danny. Try to get a day/time Sat./Sun. am or pm IF he'd like to speak with Aaron Sanborn, the Foster's Reporter @ 742-4455 ext. #__ who covers the Superior Court there. Aaron is to check with his editor first to see if it's OK to visit him at the jail for an interview, or to await the court hearing.

[JosephSHaas]

Check this out:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/FRONTPAGE/710030304

and the re-type of my "Letter to the Editor" being:

"RE: the three new judges, So will there be one hearing for all on the same day, and when? Plus WHO are the 3 that retired?  and are they deserving of their Art. 36 retirements? According to the Constitution there's supposed to be a hearing on that too, but is never done. OUT OF ORDER!  10 counties/ 19 judges, that's about 2/county on average, plus criminal cases back-logged, over 4 months?  Lynn knows that by some Superior Court Rule that when the 4 months for a speedy trial is up, there has to be by the 'shall' word that the Clerk must schedule a show-cause hearing but never does!  It's time for his impeachment to fill his office with somebody that honors their RSA 92:2 oath!  See you at the hearing to put all of them on notice of Articles 22+ 23, Pt. 2, NH Const. of to limit contempt to 10 days max.  I have a 90+ days credit due me from these thieves! in a supposed co-equal branch, that used to be under the Legislature.  And now they charge for 'free' Art. 91 habeas corpus petitions!  When are the people going to wake up and insist that their Reps evict these con artists!?"

JSH

[coffeeseven]

Check this out:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/FRONTPAGE/710030304

and the re-type of my "Letter to the Editor" being:

"RE: the three new judges, So will there be one hearing for all on the same day, and when? Plus WHO are the 3 that retired?  and are they deserving of their Art. 36 retirements? According to the Constitution there's supposed to be a hearing on that too, but is never done. OUT OF ORDER!  10 counties/ 19 judges, that's about 2/county on average, plus criminal cases back-logged, over 4 months?  Lynn knows that by some Superior Court Rule that when the 4 months for a speedy trial is up, there has to be by the 'shall' word that the Clerk must schedule a show-cause hearing but never does!  It's time for his impeachment to fill his office with somebody that honors their RSA 92:2 oath!  See you at the hearing to put all of them on notice of Articles 22+ 23, Pt. 2, NH Const. of to limit contempt to 10 days max.  I have a 90+ days credit due me from these thieves! in a supposed co-equal branch, that used to be under the Legislature.  And now they charge for 'free' Art. 91 habeas corpus petitions!  When are the people going to wake up and insist that their Reps evict these con artists!?"

JSH

You seriously need your own thread.

[JosephSHaas]

Check this out:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/FRONTPAGE/710030304

and the re-type of my "Letter to the Editor" being: ...

JSH

You seriously need your own thread.

Nah!  What we need is a neutron bomb.  Nice historical buildings, but crummy people inside.  When "they" do-away with Public Hearings, then it's all for "them".    JSH

[armlaw]

OK, can you guys explain to me how that's valid in light of:
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/DistrictCourts.htm

"Plain error occurs only when the error is clear and obvious* and effects substantial rights" U.S. v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3rd Cir. 2001).

*It's obvious by the U.S. Attorney Manual 664, that 1-8-17 "embraces courthouses"! including the Warren B. Rudman Building, in Concord, New Hampshire.

http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2007/061077np.pdf

"Substantial rights are affected if the error was sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the trial."

The U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H. is withOUT "jurisdiction"! Our state offered them "concurrent jurisdiction" back on June 14, 1883, but that they declined!

JSH

The "United States District Court" is not the Article III constitutional "district court of the United States". See, Mookini  v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, where definition is specific as to syntax. No where in Title 28 U.S. Code can be found "criminal jurisdiction" for a USDC. Original jurisdiction for all crimes against the United States is delegated in 18 USC 3231 to "district courts of the United States". Accordingly, the Concord court is a mere administrative Tribunal without criminal jurisdiction. Those who have conspired to practice such criminal action,without jurisdiction, have abandoned their office and exposed themselves to hazard of civil action. Civil action has been delegated to the USDC in Title 28 but no such delegation of criminal action. If there is, show me!

It is obvious that Attorney Larry Beecraft has not addressed the supreme courts definition of an Article III court as I above cited in Mookini 303 US 201 (next to the last paragraph of the two page decision. Lazy readers wont read the entire case and hence lose the material element of the decision)

Perhaps you would like to ask Mr. Beecraft to to comment on that seminal Mookini case and also on the 2003 case Nguyen v. United States which relied upon the Mookini case.

In any event, read the string that follows and don't skip all the hot links that may edify you as to the fraud that has been perpertrated by deception and silence as the legal community picks your pocket.
You may want to staert at the bottom and read up.?
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell (supremelawfirm@gmail.com)
Sent: Mon 7/02/07 12:13 AM
To: Dick Marple (armlaw@hotmail.com)
Cc: SteveShurtleff@aol.com; josephshaas@hotmail.com; VeritasRadio@aol.com; supremelaw@googlegroups.com
Greetings Dick,

Yes, Mookini is pivotal, not only for the essence of that holding,
but also because of the historical importance of the year -- 1938 -- 
in which it was decided i.e. 10 years before the Act of June 25, 1948.

See also "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius"
in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (the best edition, imho).
This rule of construction can be applied with devastating
results for "The Conspiracy" e.g. 28 USC 132 does NOT
mention the constitutional origins of the Article IV USDC!!

Compare the Acts establishing the Claims Court, Tax Court
and Court of International Trade!!


Notably, the federal courts are infiltrated, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/roberts.john/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (past due)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/thomas.clarence/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (dated July 4, 2007)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/ginsburg/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (dated July 4, 2007)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/breyer/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (dated July 4, 2007)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/alito.samuel/nad.missing.credentials.htm  (past due)

http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/oconnor/nad.certificate.htm  (past due)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/kennedy/nad.certificate.htm  (past due)
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/breyer/nad.certificate.htm  (past due)


My guess is that some Law Clerk slipped the offending oxymoron into that decision,
i.e. "Article III United States District Court" [sic] so that it would look like a holding.

We strongly recommend that you study carefully the methodologies
used in these three (3) briefs:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/simons/reply.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/reply.to.brief.for.appellee.htm


Their entire house of cards collapses, when the Abrogation Clause
in the Rules Enabling Act is understood for its real intent,
namely, retroactively to "fix" the problem of statutes predating
the Act of June 25, 1948, which conferred original jurisdiction
on the Article III District Courts of the United States, but
were never subsequently amended, or repealed and re-enacted,
to change the court name from DCUS to USDC!!

The stated legislative intent of the Miscellaneous Provisions
in the Act of June 25, 1948, very clearly barred any
repeals "by implication", and the high Court has already
held that such repeals are NEVER favored!!

More foundational research is found in my OPENING BRIEF
to the Ninth Circuit here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/opening.htm
(in particular:  Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992))


THERE WERE ONLY 159 YEARS OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
BETWEEN 1789 AND 1948!  THAT'S ALL!!


Thanks!


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm  <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm




On 7/1/07, Dick Marple <armlaw@hotmail.com> wrote:




Upon checking the reports I clipped this segment from 303 U.S. 201 and have hi-lited in RED what should have appeared in Phan. It was syntactically reversed and appears as the error. It may be a error in the transcribing? as this syntax in what follows is correct...

Dick Marple

"On

Page 303 U.S. 201 , 205

the contrary, the manifest intention of the Congress was to permit the Court to exercise its discretion concerning the application of the rules.

The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268, 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended. "






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:  "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To:   VeritasRadio@aol.com
CC:   armlaw@hotmail.com, SteveShurtleff@aol.com, josephshaas@hotmail.com, SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
Subject:  error in Phan
Date:  Sun, 1 Jul 2007 07:36:05 -0700




>  Moreover, historically, the term "United States District Court" in Title 28
>  has ordinarily excluded Article IV territorial courts
, even when

>  their jurisdiction is similar to that of an
Article III United States District Court.
>  E. g., Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 205. Pp.74-76.

OBJECTION:

The United States District Court is NOT an Article III constitutional court;
it is a legislative tribunal with a constitutional origin in the Territory Clause.
Balzac v. Porto Rico.

No constitutional origin is mentioned at 28 USC 132,
which established the USDCs inside the several States:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/132.html

... so we must resort to standing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court
like Balzac supra and Mookini (cited incorrectly in Phan).

Compare the Court of International Trade (Article III mentioned),
Claims Court (Article I mentioned), Tax Court (Article I mentioned).


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)


http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm  <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell < supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 1, 2007 7:00 AM

Subject: Re: Marple asks former US Marshal a pointed question re: Judge McAuliffe re: The Browns ?
To: VeritasRadio@aol.com
Cc: armlaw@hotmail.com
, SteveShurtleff@aol.com, josephshaas@hotmail.com, SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com
>

 
>  I believe Dick Marple, a former NH State Rep and a friend of mine,
>  is asking this in relation to the Judge in the Browns trial and
>  it touches on an area that you have researched and are well familiar with...


Yes.

The Article IV USDC has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.
Statutes conferring original jurisdiction on Federal District Courts
must be STRICTLY construed.  Compare 18 USC 3231 ("DCUS"!):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html


For a breezy introduction, see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm


Has anybody investigated McAuliffe's 4 required credentials?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/


Remember this:  if available, the APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT identifies
the "Department or agency" and, for district judges, it will most likely
say "United States District Court":  that is still more proof that McAuliffe
is NOT an "Article III" district judge.  The District Clerk is the designated
legal custodian of each APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT for each judge:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/federal.judges.htm
 
p.s.  Also, the "United States" is not a corporation.  U.S. v. Cooper Corporation:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm


COPY OF MESSAGE SENT TODAY:

>  * the name and # of that Arizona case in 1996.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nlhc/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nlhc/foiastat.htm

     (1)  the Freedom  of Information  Act  ("FOIA")  Request  to

          "JOHN M.  ROLL," dated  May 12,  1996, be  filed in the

          instant case;  and


     (2)  this is  not the  proper forum to bring a request under

          the Freedom of Information Act.

[end excerpt]


John M. Roll was later charged with multiple federal felonies
in that case, however:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/roll/


See also:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/simons/reply.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/reply.to.brief.for.appellee.htm
  <-- VERY LATEST


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)


http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
(Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
(Client Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm  <-- START HERE


http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end .times.irs.forward.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm





 
On 7/1/07, Joseph S. Haas <
josephshaas@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,

Do you have the answer to my question?*

over at
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4590

and in particular my Reply #4597 on page 307 there posted just a few minutes
ago at exactly: 7:22 AM.


Thank you,  - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H.
03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

cc: Dick Marple, former State Rep., Retired of Hooksett, N.H. (with thanks too)

* the name and # of that Arizona case in 1996.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Supreme Law Firm <
paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Date: Jul 1, 2007 6:46 AM
Subject: Marple asks former US Marshall a pointed question re: Judge McAuliffe re: The Browns ?
To:
supremelawfirm@gmail.com



VeritasRadio@aol.com wrote:
From: VeritasRadio@aol.com

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 00:24:09 EDT
Subject: Marple asks former US Marshall a pointed question re: Judge McAuliffe re: The Browns ?
To:
paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com

Paul,

I believe Dick Marple, a former NH State Rep and a friend of mine, is asking this in relation to the Judge in the Browns trial and it
touches on an area that you have researched and are
well familiar with...

Harvey

>>From: "Dick Marple" <
armlaw@hotmail.com>
>>To:
SteveShurtleff@aol.com
>>Subject: Difference-US Marshal & US Marshal Serv...
>>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:52:46 +0000
>>
>>Thanks Steve....
>>
>>You being a former Federal Marshal I thought you could help me

>>document the following.
>>
>>What I am attempting to document is;
>>
>>1- Is Mr. McAuliffe a life-tenured Article III judge. ?

>>
>>2- Is the compensation that Mr. McAuliffe receives, diminished by
         deductions for S/S, Medicare and Income Tax?

>>
>>If so, he would not be a lawful judge of criminal matters in the
>>Article IV Tribunal of which he is a mere employee. (Only

>>employees pay S/S. Medicare & Income Tax, Article III judges can
>>not have their compensation diminished, See Article III )
>>
>>The bankrupt municipal corporation we know as the "United States",

>>has by Acts of congress, delegated the United States District
>>Courts CIVIL jurisdiction ONLY !. They can sue and be sued but have
>> NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
delegated. If there is, I demand it be
>>shown, on the record, that justice may prevail. My dilligent
>>research of Title 28 does NOT reveal that any criminal

>>jurisdiction or authority has been delegated to any "United States
>>District Courts".
>>
>>These courts are mere Administrative Tribunals, created by congress
>>under Article IV for use in administrating the bankrupucty of the

>>United States and for the enforcement of territorial ordinances. 
>>I attempted to convey this fact to Mr. Starr, in 4 Affidavits,
>>covering the jurisdictional limitations of Article IV tribunals.

>>His silence is an acceptance of my assertions . (all Affidavits are
>>matters of RECORD as filed copies with Secretary of State [NH], Bill
>>Gardner, several years ago)

>>
>>As supreme court evidence that all judges must take "judicial
>>notice" by their oath, the following, from the 1938 decision in

>>Mookini v. U.S. 303 U.S. 201.
>>
>>"The term
'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the
>>rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its
>>historic significance.
It describes the constitutional courts
>>created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the

>>Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not
>>District Courts of the United States. We have often held that
>>vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that

>>vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it
>>a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States,

>>98 U.S. 145, 154; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460; In re
>>Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268, 10 S.Ct. 762; McAllister v. United
>>States, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183 S., 11 S.Ct. 949; Stephens v.

>>Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477 S., 19 S.Ct. 722; Summers
>>v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38; United
>>States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only did

>>the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United
>>States in its historic and proper sense,
but the omission of
>>provision for the application of the rules to the
>>territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing
>>act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.
"
>>
>>Further....
>>
>>"In the presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought
>>and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction in the matter,

>>then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgement is void."
>>Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 13th Reprint (1998).

>>
>>Further....in 2003 the supreme court repeated its previous
>>precedence and affrimed what was done in 1938. Please see a portion
>>of the Nguyen case which follows....
>>

>>'OCTOBER TERM, 2002
>>
>>Syllabus
>>
>>NGUYEN v. UNITED STATES

>>
>>CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
>>
>>
>>No. 01-10873. Argued March 24, 2003- Decided June 9, 2003*

>>
>>Petitioners were tried, convicted, and sentenced on federal
>>narcotics charges in the District Court of Guam, a territorial
>>court with subject matter jurisdiction over both federal-law and

>>local-law causes. The Ninth Circuit panel convened to hear their
>>appeals included two judges from that court, both of whom are
>>life-tenured Article III judges, and the Chief Judge of the

>>District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, an Article IV
>>territorial-court judge appointed by the President and confirmed by
>>the Senate for a 10-year term. Neither petitioner objected to the

>>panel's composition before the cases were submitted for decision,
>>and neither sought rehearing to challenge the panel's authority to
>>decide their appeals after it affirmed their convictions. However,

>>each filed a certiorari petition claiming that the judgment is
>>invalid because a non-Article III judge participated
on the panel.
>>
>>Held: The Ninth Circuit panel did not have the authority to decide
>>petitioners' appeals. Pp.74-83.

>>
>>(a) In light of the relevant statutory provisions and historical
>>usage, it is evident that Congress did not contemplate the judges
>>of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to be

>>"district judges" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 292(a), which
>>authorizes the assignment of "one or more district judges within
>>[a] circuit" to sit on the court of appeals "whenever the business

>>of that court so requires." As used throughout Title 28, "district
>>court" means a "'court of the United States'"
"constituted by
>>chapter 5 of this title." §451. Among other things, Chapter 5
>>creates a "United States District Court" for each judicial

>>district, § 132(a), exhaustively enumerates the districts so
>>constituted, § 133(a), and describes "district judges" as holding
>>office
"during good behavior," § 134(a). Significantly, the
>>District Court for the Northern
>>Mariana Islands is not one of the enumerated courts, nor is it even

>>mentioned in Chapter 5. See § 133(a). Because that court's judges
>>are appointed for a term of years and may be removed by the
>>President for cause, they also do not satisfy § 134(a)'s command

>>for district judges to hold office during good behavior. Although
>>the Chief
>>
>>*Together with No. 02-5034, Phan v. United States, also on

>>certiorari to the same court.
>>70
>>
>>Syllabus
>>
>>Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands is
>>literally a
"district judge" of a court "within the [Ninth]
>>[C]ircuit," such a reading of § 292(a
) is so capacious that it
>>would also justify the designation of "district judges" of any
>>number of state courts "within" the Ninth Circuit
. Moreover,
>>historically, the term "United States District Court" in Title 28
>>has ordinarily
excluded Article IV territorial courts, even when
>>their jurisdiction is similar to that of an Article III United

>>States District Court. E. g., Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S.
>>201, 205. Pp.74-76.

>>
>>(b) The Government's three grounds for leaving the judgments below
>>undisturbed are not persuasive. First, this Court's precedents
>>concerning alleged irregularities in the assignment of judges do

>>not compel application here of the de facto officer doctrine, which
>>confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the
>>color of official title even though it is later discovered that the

>>legality of that person's appointment to office is deficient, Ryder
>>v. United States, 515 U. S. 177, 180. Typically, the Court has
>>found a judge's actions to be valid de facto when there is a

>>"merely technical" defect of statutory authority, McDowell v.
>>United States, 159 U. S. 596, 601-602, but not when, as here, there
>>has been a violation of a statutory provision that embodies weighty

>>congressional policy concerning the proper organization of the
>>federal courts, see, e. g., American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville,
>>T. & K. W R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 387. Second, for essentially the

>>same reasons, it is inappropriate to accept the Government's
>>invitation to assess the merits of petitioners' convictions or
>>whether the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the

>>proceedings were impaired by the composition of the panel. Third, the
>>Government's argument that the presence of a quorum of two
>>otherwise-qualified judges on the panel is sufficient to support

>>the decision below is rejected for two reasons. The federal quorum
>>statute, 28 U. S. C. § 46(d), has been on the books (in relevant
>>part essentially unchanged) for over a century, yet this Court has

>>never doubted its power to vacate a judgment entered by an
>>improperly constituted court of appeals, even when there was a
>>quorum of judges competent to consider the appeal. See, e. g.,

>>United States v. American-Foreign S. S. Corp., 363 U. S. 685.
>>Moreover, the statute authorizing courts of appeals to sit
>>in panels, § 46(b), requires the inclusion of at least three judges

>>in the first instance. Although the two Article III judges who took
>>part below would have constituted a quorum had the original panel
>>been properly created, it is at least highly doubtful whether they

>>had any authority to serve by themselves as a panel. Thus, it is
>>appropriate to return these cases to the Ninth Circuit for fresh
>>consideration by a properly constituted panel. Pp. 77-83.

>>
>>284 F. 3d 1086, vacated and remanded.
>>
>>71
>>Full Text of Opinion
>>
>>Further....
>>
>>
>>"In the exercise of the power, granted to it by the Constitution,

>>to make all needful rules and regulations with respect to the
>>territory or other property belonging to the United States,
>>Congress may, as shown supra sec. 2, create territorial courts and

>>confer on them judicial power.
>>
>>The courts so created are legislative courts [28. Mookini v. U. S.,
>>Hawaii, 58 S.Ct. 543, 303 U.S. 201, 82 L.Ed 748, conformed to
>>C.C.A
. 95 F.2d. 960; Williams v. U. S., Ct.Cl., 53 S.Ct. 751, 289
>>U.S 553, 77 L.Ed. 1372; O'Donoghue v. U. S., Ct.Cl., 53 S.Ct. 740,
>>289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356] rather than constitutional courts

>>created under the judiciary article of the Constitution, [29. Mookini...;
>>International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen Union v. Juneau
>>Spruce Corp., 170 F.2d. 183; cert. den. 69 S.Ct. 641, 336
U.S. 919,
>>93 L.Ed. 1082; reh. den. 69 S.Ct. 936, 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed.
>>1121]...
>>
>>
>>While a territorial court may be considered a "court of the United
>>States" for some purposes, [
32.5] or a "district court of the
>>United States" in the context of particular legislation, [ 32.10]
>>the words "court of the United States" [32.15] or "district court
>>of the United States" [
32.20] commonly describe constitutional
>>courts created under the judiciary article of the Constitution and
>>not territorial courts. Most sections of Title 28 referring to the
>>district courts are applicable to constitutional courts of the

>>United States only and are not applicable to the territorial courts
>>created by Congress. [32.25. Callwood v. Callwood, D.C.Virgin
>>Islands, 127 F.Supp. 179.]"
>>36A CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (1995), FEDERAL COURTS, § 312.

>>
>>Bolding and underline is added for emphasis by this author.
>>
>>Steve.....I hope you don't think I am pushing you into a corner but
>>my oaths to see justice prevail requires my exposure of the true

>>facts in this matter. I hope you agree and can offer me some
>>direction in doing what needs to be done.
>>
>>Sincerely
>>
>>Dick Marple
>>

[JosephSHaas]

OK, can you guys explain to me how that's valid in light of:
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/DistrictCourts.htm

"Plain error occurs only when the error is clear and obvious* and effects substantial rights" U.S. v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3rd Cir. 2001).

*It's obvious by the U.S. Attorney Manual 664, that 1-8-17 "embraces courthouses"! including the Warren B. Rudman Building, in Concord, New Hampshire.

http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2007/061077np.pdf

"Substantial rights are affected if the error was sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the trial."

The U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H. is withOUT "jurisdiction"! Our state offered them "concurrent jurisdiction" back on June 14, 1883, but that they declined!

JSH

The "United States District Court" is not the Article III constitutional "district court of the United States". See, Mookini  v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, where definition is specific as to syntax. No where in Title 28 U.S. Code can be found "criminal jurisdiction" for a USDC. Original jurisdiction for all crimes against the United States is delegated in 18 USC 3231 to "district courts of the United States". Accordingly, the Concord court is a mere administrative Tribunal without criminal jurisdiction. Those who have conspired to practice such criminal action,without jurisdiction, have abandoned their office and exposed themselves to hazard of civil action. Civil action has been delegated to the USDC in Title 28 but no such delegation of criminal action. If there is, show me!

It is obvious that Attorney Larry Beecraft has not addressed the supreme courts definition of an Article III court as I above cited in Mookini 303 US 201 (next to the last paragraph of the two page decision. Lazy readers wont read the entire case and hence lose the material element of the decision)

Perhaps you would like to ask Mr. Beecraft to to comment on that seminal Mookini case and also on the 2003 case Nguyen v. United States which relied upon the Mookini case.

In any event, read the string that follows and don't skip all the hot links that may edify you as to the fraud that has been perpertrated by deception and silence as the legal community picks your pocket.
You may want to staert at the bottom and read up.? ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  On 7/1/07, Joseph S. Haas <
josephshaas@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,

Do you have the answer to my question?*

over at
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4590

and in particular my Reply #4597 on page 307 there posted just a few minutes
ago at exactly: 7:22 AM.


Thank you,  - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H.
03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

cc: Dick Marple, former State Rep., Retired of Hooksett, N.H. (with thanks too)

* the name and # of that Arizona case in 1996. ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>>From: "Dick Marple" <
armlaw@hotmail.com>
>>To:
SteveShurtleff@aol.com
>>Subject: Difference-US Marshal & US Marshal Serv...
>>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:52:46 +0000
>>
>>Thanks Steve....
>>
>>You being a former Federal Marshal I thought you could help me

>>document the following.
>>
>>What I am attempting to document is;
>>
>>1- Is Mr. McAuliffe a life-tenured Article III judge. ?

>>
>>2- Is the compensation that Mr. McAuliffe receives, diminished by
         deductions for S/S, Medicare and Income Tax?

>>
>>If so, he would not be a lawful judge of criminal matters in the
>>Article IV Tribunal of which he is a mere employee. (Only

>>employees pay S/S. Medicare & Income Tax, Article III judges can
>>not have their compensation diminished, See Article III )
>>
>>The bankrupt municipal corporation we know as the "United States",

>>has by Acts of congress, delegated the United States District
>>Courts CIVIL jurisdiction ONLY !. They can sue and be sued but have
>> NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
delegated. If there is, I demand it be
>>shown, on the record, that justice may prevail. My dilligent
>>research of Title 28 does NOT reveal that any criminal

>>jurisdiction or authority has been delegated to any "United States
>>District Courts".
>>
>>These courts are mere Administrative Tribunals, created by congress
>>under Article IV for use in administrating the bankrupucty of the

>>United States and for the enforcement of territorial ordinances. 
>>I attempted to convey this fact to Mr. Starr, in 4 Affidavits,
>>covering the jurisdictional limitations of Article IV tribunals.

>>His silence is an acceptance of my assertions . (all Affidavits are
>>matters of RECORD as filed copies with Secretary of State [NH], Bill
>>Gardner, several years ago)

>>
>>As supreme court evidence that all judges must take "judicial
>>notice" by their oath, the following, from the 1938 decision in

>>Mookini v. U.S. 303 U.S. 201.
>>
>>"The term
'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the
>>rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its
>>historic significance.
It describes the constitutional courts
>>created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the

>>Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not
>>District Courts of the United States. We have often held that
>>vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that

>>vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it
>>a 'District Court of the United States.' Reynolds v. United States,

>>98 U.S. 145, 154; ...
"
>>
>>Further....
>>
>>"In the presence of a person not a judge. When a suit is brought
>>and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction in the matter,

>>then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgement is void."
>>Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 13th Reprint (1998).

> ...
>>The courts so created are legislative courts [28. Mookini v. U. S.,
>>Hawaii, 58 S.Ct. 543, 303 U.S. 201, 82 L.Ed 748, conformed to
>>C.C.A
. 95 F.2d. 960; ...

Thanks Dick,

I've highlighted your reply by deletions.

In your June 28th '07 e-mail to SteveShurtleff at aol.com former U.S. Marshal and current State Rep. you asked him two questions of which I've yet to see an answer, and of the 4 affidavits on file with the N.H. Secretary of State in which McAuliffe refuses to answer, so admitted as true prima facie evidence that he has no jurisdiction over criminal cases in this TYPE of court, or if so, it be minor, as that website located within my Reply #4591* of 6/30/07 @ 11:11 am that gives the history of the federal court here in New Hampshire starting out in Exeter and Portsmouth to over here in Concord now. Notice that a Code is a compilation of the laws, rules or regulations, by the very definition of the word, and that as it regards the Internal Revenue Code it is supposed to be only rules or regulations against government employees who can be fired for not doing their job.  As stated before: the President issues his E.O./Executive Order to the Treasury Secretary who issues his T.O./ Treasury Order, but that if NOT published in the C.F.R./ Code of Federal Regulations, then they do NOT apply to us as members of the general public-at-large, BUT only to "them"/ government workers.  What makes Ed "liable" to be put into that box/chart for to pay $x amount if you make over $x salary, etc. was never indicated in court, the judge telling the jury erroneous information that "everyone" is to be put into that box, which is a lie, and attempt to minimize his contributions if paying into Social Security, and so a judge who is biased and should not have been on this case. Furthermore to see the front of the I.R. Code book with that "*" of that this Code has NOT been entered into positive law. What does that mean? It's a code of rules or regulations for a certain group that does NOT include the public!

* From my Reply #4591 of June 30, 2007 @ 11:11 AM I noticed that you did not take my mission request, and so I just called the 1-202-502-1441 # at the Fed AOC for statistics and heard the voice mail of Gwendlyn Coleman to leave a message for her by pressing 5, and so my simple question, of her to answer yes or no, is: Does Judge Stephen McAuliffe pay into Social Security?  This was after I had made the statement that members of Congress do NOT pay into SS, but to their own pension fund, and so would like to know if these federal judges fall into the same category. I left her my tel. # 603: 848-6059 to call me back, to relay over to here later of what she has to say. Plus to send her my e-mail address too, to not SD address, but the SD_ underscore address as corrected or since changed to this addition.

Yours truly, Joe

[LordBaltimore]

This was after I had made the statement that members of Congress do NOT pay into SS, but to their own pension fund, and so would like to know if these federal judges fall into the same category.

That's an internet urban legend, Joe.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

[VEPR]

Holy moses some of you guys have a hell of a lot of time on your hands. Some of these posts would take me the better part of the year to come up with. Is Ed Brown still in his home, friend of mine reads his blogs just for info and said he hasn't seen one in almost a month. Just curious if this thing is finally over. Richardr do you consider yourself to be a person who fights for maintaining the freedoms of all Americans? I cant figure out if you are a true patriotic American, or someone who wants the Govt to take care of him. This isn't meant as an insult, I'm just curious. Most everyone else on here seems pretty easy to read, they just want to be left alone. I see you and Romak are the only ones who are very opposed to supporting Ed Brown one iota. I don't support him either I think hes a nitwit and has crossed the line, but before he started threatening people I thought he had a legitimate gripe against the income tax. Personally I would've gone a much different route, like electing people to repeal the beast. Ron Paul's stand on the income tax and his stand against all forms of gun control are the two reasons my family supports him.